M. Trelles & Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1939

12 N.L.R.B. 981 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of MAORINO TRELLES, MANUEL TRRI.r.Fs, UBALDO
TRF.LLES AND MAx L. BLOCK, CO-PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS AS
M. TRELLES & COMPANY and MRS. XAVIA GIARDINA
Case No. 0-74B.-Decided May 15, 19,39
Hand-Made Cigar Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint, and
Coercion : close surveillance of activities of employees active in union ; sur-
veillance of union meeting ; remarks made by supervisors to employees clearly
indicating employer 's opposition to the union ; employer ordered to cease such
practices-Company-Dominated Union : charges of, dismissed as without evi-
dence-Discrimination : charge of, dismissed.
Mr. Samuel Lang, for the Board.
Deutsch and Kerrigan, by Mr. Eberhard P. Deutsch and Mr.
Marion Meyer, of New Orleans, La., for the respondent.
Mr. Wallace Cooper, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Mrs. Xavia Giardina, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles H.
Logan, Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans,
Louisiana), issued its complaint dated April 18, 1938, against Ma-
crino Trelles, Manuel Trelles, Ubaldo Trelles, and Max L. Block,
copartners, doing business as M. Trelles & Company, New Orleans,
Louisiana, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of
hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and Mrs.
Giardina.
The complaint alleged in substance that on or about February 18,
1938, the respondent discharged Mrs. Giardina and had at all times
12 N. L. R. B., No. 98.
981
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
since refused to reinstate her, because she joined and assisted the
Committee for Industrial Organization, herein called the C. I. 0.;
that between December 10, 1937, and April 10, 1938, the respondent
by veiled threats and intimidation, by surveillance of union activities
and conduct of employees known particularly for their C. I. O. ac-
tivity, and by other acts and conduct, discouraged membership in
a labor organization of the employees' own choosing and particularly
the C. I. 0.; and that between November 1, 1937, and March 1, 1938,
the respondent attempted to cause the formation of a labor organiza-
tion for the purpose of frustrating the efforts of the employees to
organize within the C. I. O. On April 22, 1938, the respondent filed
an answer containing a general denial of the material allegations
of the complaint and affirmatively alleging that Mrs. Giardina had
been discharged for cause.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in New Orleans, Louisiana,
on April 28, 29, and 30, and May 2 and 3, 1938, before Webster
Powell, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties. At the hearing, the respondent ob-
jected to the introduction by the Board of certain evidence relative
to activities by the respondent prior to November 1, 1937, basing
such objection on the fact that the unfair labor practices set forth
in the complaint were alleged to have occurred subsequent to Novem-
ber 1, 1937. This objection is considered in Section III below. At
the close of the Board's case , counsel for the Board moved that the
pleadings be amended to conform with the proof. No objection was
raised to this motion, and it was granted by the Trial Examiner.
The ruling is hereby affirmed. During the course of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on
other objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On July 5, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report
in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
and (3) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to reinstate Mrs. Giardina with
back pay. The Trial Examiner further found that the respondent
had not engaged in and is not engaging in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act, and recommended
that the complaint be dismissed in that respect. Copies of the Inter-
mediate Report were duly served on the respondent and Mrs.
Giardina. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
MACRINO TRELLES 983
mediate Report and a brief in support thereof. It also filed a mo-
tion to correct the record by including a portion of the testimony of
Abel Vagas allegedly omitted from the transcript of the hearing.
The motion is considered below.
Pursuant to notice, oral argument was had before the Board at
Washington, D. C., on February 23, 1939. The respondent was
represented by counsel and participated in the argument.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate
Report filed by the respondent and, except in so far as they are
consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below,
finds them without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a commercial partnership organized under the
laws of the State of Louisiana, the partners being Manuel Trelles,
Ubaldo Trelles, Macrino Trelles, and Max L. Block. It is engaged at
New Orleans, Louisiana, in the manufacture and sale of hand-made
cigars.
During 1937, the respondent used in connection with its operations
$493,722.52 worth of tobacco, obtaining all of the tobacco from Cuba
and Connecticut. During such period, it also used $616,787.80 worth
of other raw materials, supplies, and equipment. 'Approximately 90
per cent of such raw materials, supplies, and equipment, were
obtained from points outside the State of Louisiana.
During 1937, the respondent sold 40,906,032 cigars having a total
value of $1,623,216.10. Approximately 63 per cent of the cigars were
shipped outside the State of Louisiana.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
A labor organization, herein called the Union, was formed by
employees of the respondent during the period from October to
December 1937. The Union has taken certain steps in contempla-
tion of affiliation with the Committee for Industrial Organization,
but no charter had been obtained at the time of the hearing.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
During the course of a conversation in September 1937 between
Manuel Trelles, a partner in the respondent firm, and Joseph Lopez,
one of the respondent's cigar makers, Trelles stated that he under-
stood that Lopez had been "carrying on" with the C. I. O. When
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lopez denied having done so, Trelles replied, "Well, that is all I
wanted to know. That means we are still friends."
Although the record does not show that at the time of the above
conversation any active steps had been taken to organize the em-
ployees, Lopez shortly thereafter in October 1937 initiated a move-
ment for the formation of a union and proposed that it affiliate with
the C. I. O. An organizational meeting was held on November 1,
1937, at which plans were made to have the employees sign C. I. O.
application cards which Lopez had obtained from officials of the
C. I. O.
On November 6, 1937, the day prior to the date set for a second
meeting of employees, Manuel Trelles called Lopez aside at the
factory and asked him, "What is that you carry on upstairs?"
When Lopez replied to the effect that nothing was being carried on,
Trelles stated that Lopez was a "fool and a big talker" and added,
"I always did tell you that a rotton apple in a case will rot the
others." When Lopez stated that he did not know what Trelles was
talking about, Trelles replied, "You will find out." Although Trelles
did not at this time specifically mention his previous conversation
with Lopez in September, the uncontroverted testimony of Lopez
was that Trelles told him during the course of the second conversa-
tion, "As it is, you had already promised that you won't get into
this." Since Trelles referred in the conversation in September to the
C. I. O. and in view of the other circumstances hereinafter set forth,
we think it clear and find that Trelles' conversation with Lopez on
November 6, 1937, was designed to interfere with, coerce, and restrain
Lopez with regard to his union activities.
As indicated above, a second meeting of employees was held on
November 7, 1937, and a membership committee was selected., Lopez
testified that at about this time approximately 70 persons had signed
C. I. O. application cards and that at the time of the hearing the
number had increased to approximately 200.2 Joseph Garcia, a fore-
man, and Manuel Garcia, both nephews of Manuel Trelles, shortly
before the hour set for the November 6 meeting watched the entrance
to the hall where the meeting was held from an automobile and
inquired of Henry Fortunato, an employee who had arrived early to
attend the meeting and who was waiting outside the hall, as to what he
was doing in that "strange neighborhood." During the meeting, the
two Garcias drove slowly past the meeting hall a number of times.
About this time, Manuel Trelles informed a number of the foremen
and supervisory employees that they were not to interfere with the
1 At a later meeting in December 1937, officers were elected.
2 At the hearing , the respondent asked that there be submitted a list of the persons
signing C. I. O. application cards in order that they might be used in cross-examining
Lopez with respect to his testimony concerning the number of persons signing such cards.
The Trial Examiner denied this request. The ruling is hereby affirmed.
IVIACRINO TRELLES 985,
union activities which were being carried on. At the same time,
however, he instructed Ralph Ayala, foreman of the cigar makers,
that he should be "careful and watch everything" and instructed
Fernando Trelles, a supervisory employee, that he should "keep his
eyes open and his mouth closed" and report what he saw. Fernando
Trelles testified that when he "saw or heard anything" he reported
it to Manuel Trelles. The evidence shows that Ayala was even more
active in his attempts to discourage the union activity. Abel Vagas,
an employee, testified that, having heard rumors that a report had
been made to Ayala and Manuel Trelles that he (Vagas) was forcing
employees to join the C. I. 0., he asked Ayala if such a report had
been made and that Ayala replied that he had heard that Vagas was
"with that bunch over there" and pointed to Lopez and Fortunato,
two active members of the C. I. 0. Vagas testified that Ayala then
remarked, "I am surprised at you, you have four sisters working" and
added, "as long as you do what is right ... you will stick here 16
more years." Although Ayala did not deny the aforesaid testimony
of Vagas, the respondent contends that weight should not be given
to such testimony in view of a statement made by Vagas on cross-
examination. In testifying on cross-examination with respect to
matters other than the remarks Ayala is alleged to have made, Vagas
stated that he was somewhat mixed up and could not remember what
actually occurred. Counsel for the respondent then asked, "Do you
lose remembrance on cross-examination or on direct examination?"
Vagas' answer as set forth in the transcript of the hearing is, "I
don't know." The respondent contends that in fact Vagas also
answered, "You see, I used to be a prize-fighter, and like they say,
I'd get punch drunk, and since then I guess I've never been quite right
in the head." It has filed a motion asking that the record be cor-
rected to include such additional answer. Counsel for the Board has
filed an affidavit stating that his recollection is that Vagas answered,
"I don't know. You see, I used to be a prize fighter, and like they
say, I get punch drunk." We feel it unnecessary, however, to make
any definite determination as to the precise wording of the aforesaid
answer of Vagas on cross-examination. We think that even if Vagas
made the answer which the respondent contends that he made there is
no sufficient basis for not giving weight to his clear and unrefuted
testimony on direct examination with respect to the statements made
to him by Ayala. We conclude that Ayala made the statments at-
tributed to him by Vagas. We find it unnecessary, therefore, to pass
upon the respondent's motion referred to above.
Numerous witnesses testified that following the initiation of the
union organizational activities the attitude of the supervisory
officials of the respondent toward the employees actively engaged in
such activities changed noticeably and that such employees were
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
watched very closely. Moreover a rule against employees walking
around in the factory and talking was strictly enforced only after
the union movement was begun. The respondent admits that begin-
ning about October 1937 a closer watch was kept on the employees
than prior thereto but contends that such action resulted from the
fact that about October 25, 1937, it began to receive an unusually
large number of both oral and written complaints concerning the
presence of foreign matter in their cigars. The respondent submit-
ted in evidence in this connection 10 letters which complained of the
presence of foreign matter in the cigars. It was conceded that the
10 letters comprised the total number of written complaints received
during the 6 months' period beginning October 25, 1937. Four of
the letters were received in 1937 and six were received in the early
part of 1938.
On the basis of the entire record, we are not convinced by the con-
tention of the respondent relative to the close watch which was
kept upon the employees. Such surveillance was begun only after
the employees had initiated their organizational activities and con-
cerned primarily the leaders in such organizational activities. It
was begun prior to the date of receipt of any unusual number of
complaints. It took place about the time that Manuel Trelles talked
with the supervisory employees about the union activities in the
plant and instructed a number of them to watch for any union
activity. We conclude that the surveillance was for the purpose
of interfering with the employees in their attempts to organize.
At the hearing, the respondent objected to the introduction of
any evidence relative to unfair labor practices on the part of the
respondent prior to November 1, 1937, on the ground that there
is nothing in the charge or complaint referring to a period
prior to November 1, 1937, and hence that the respondent had
not been put on notice of the Board's intention to offer evidence as
to matters arising prior to that date. The only evidence considered
herein relating to a period prior to November 1, 1937, is that dealing
with the remarks made by Manuel Trelles to Joseph Lopez in
September 1937. Trelles was present at the hearing and the re-
spondent clearly had adequate opportunity to meet such evidence.
The incident of September 1937 was, moreover, closely related to
Trelles' conversation with Lopez on November 6, 1937, a date sub-
sequent to the period covered by the objection of the respondent.
The Board's attorney at the close of the Board's case moved to
amend the pleadings to conform with the proof. No objection was
raised to this motion and it was granted by the Trial Examiner.
We find that the respondent was not prejudiced by the ruling of
the Trial Examiner overruling the objection.
MACRINO TRELLES 987
In its exceptions to the Intermediate Report of the Trial Exam-
iner, the respondent excepts to the action of the Trial Examiner in
having permitted introduction at the hearing of evidence relating
to unfair labor practices prior to December 10, 1937, and to the
findings of the Trial Examiner that the respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices prior to December 10, 1937. The respondent based its
exceptions on the ground that the unfair labor practices set forth
in the complaint are alleged to have occurred subsequent to Decem-
ber 10, 1937. The respondent raised no objection at the hearing to
the introduction of evidence with respect to the period subsequent to
November 1, 1937. The facts with respect to the unfair labor prac-
tices prior to December 10, 1937, were fully tried at the hearing. As
stated above, the respondent raised no objection to the action of the
Trial Examiner in granting the motion of counsel for the Board to
amend the pleadings to conform with the proof. Under such circum-
stances, we find the said exceptions of the respondent to be without
merit.
We find that by virtue of the remarks which Manuel Trelles made
to Joseph Lopez in September 1937 and on November 6, 1937, by
virtue of the surveillance by Joseph and Manuel Garcia of the meet-
ing of employees on November 7, 1937, by virtue of the instructions
given to foremen and other supervisory employees relative to the
watching of the activities of the employees, by virtue of the activities
of Ralph Ayala and Fernando Trelles, by virtue of the close sur-
veillance of the employees active in the attempts of the employees
to organize, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
B. The alleged domination of and interference with a labor
organization
The complaint alleges that between November 1, 1937, and March
1, 1938, the respondent attempted to cause the formation of a labor
organization for the purpose of frustrating the efforts of its em-
ployees to organize within the C. I. 0., but that on or about March
1, 1938, such attempt was abandoned because of the lack of interest
of the employees.
The evidence shows that about November 1937, August Metoyer,
a colored employee, advised a number of the colored employees that
he was opposed to a union such as the C. I. 0. and that he intended
to form a labor organization among the employees of the respondent
in opposition to the C. I. 0. About this same time, Metoyer in-
formed Manuel Trelles that a number of employees were complain-
ing to him about the C. I. 0. activities. It appears that Metoyer
made a similar complaint to Trelles about February 1938. Metoyer
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified that Trelles heard his complaints and asked him about his
own opinion, but that Trelles did not express any views to him about
the C. I. 0. or about any other labor organization. Metoyer ap-
parently at no time took any steps to carry out his declared intention
of forming a labor organization.
We find that the respondent has not engaged in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
C. The discharge of Mrs. Xavia Giardina
Mrs. Giardina was employed by the respondent as a cigar roller
in May 1934 and worked in such capacity until her discharge on
February 18, 1938. During the term of her employment, at least
until about Christmas 1937, Mrs. Giardina proved to be a fair, aver-
age roller, receiving no more complaints about her work than many
of her coworkers . The respondent contends , however, that shortly
before Christmas 1937 Mrs. Giardina made a large number of bad
cigars which were returned to her for repair by her foreman with a
reprimand; that thereafter until February 17, 1938, her services
grew more and more unsatisfactory; and that during such latter
period she received some half-dozen complaints about her work from
her foreman. The respondent further contends that on February
17, 1938, Mrs. Giardina made 25 bad cigars and was discharged on
the following day because of her poor work. Mrs. Giardina denied
at the hearing that she had been disciplined at any time during the
2 or 3 months prior to her discharge and testified that she had never
been warned during the period of her employment with the respond-
ent that if she did not do better work she would be discharged. Mrs.
Giardina contended that such warning was customary prior to a
discharge and that she was discharged because of her union activity
rather than because of poor work.
We are convinced on the basis of the evidence presented that from
Christmas 1937 until February 17, 1938, Mrs. Giardina's attention
was called about six times to her unsatisfactory work. The testimony
of Ayala, Mrs. Giardina's foreman , that about Christmas 1937 he
called,Mrs. Giardina into the packing room and showed her 12 or 15
bad cigars made by her was supported by the testimony of some 4 of
Mrs. Giardina's coworkers . The testimony of Mrs . Giardina's co-
workers also supports Ayala's testimony that he talked with Mrs.
Giardina about five times after Christmas about unsatisfactory work
,performed by her . It appears that bad cigars are usually returned
to the roller to be done over, but that the foreman on his daily rounds
merely cautions rollers about unsatisfactory , though passable , cigars
and that such cigars are not returned to the roller . There is no
showing that cigars were actually returned to Mrs. Giardina between
MACRINO TRFLLFS 989
Christmas 1937 and February 17, 1938. There is no showing, more-
over, that Mrs. Giardina was told during this period that she would
be discharged if her work did not improve.
On February 9, 1938, and thus 9 days before her discharge, Mrs.
Giardina signed a C. 10. membership application card. She testi-
fied that prior thereto she had discussed the National Labor Relations
Act and the benefits of organization with a number of employees.
She was placed on the membership committee of the Union immedi-
atelv after February 9.
Shortly before February 9, persons in charge of arrangements for
a dinner which was being given in New Orleans, Louisiana, on Feb-
ruary 15, 1938, in honor of Miss Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor,
had sent invitations to the dinner to "C. 10. Cigar Makers Union,
care of Joseph Lopez." Lopez consulted with a number of employees
and it was decided that he and Henry Fortunato should attend and
collections were made among the employees for this purpose. After
Mrs. Giardina signed a C. I. O. application card, Lopez decided that
she should go as representative of the women employees of the factory
if enough money was collected to send three persons. The collections
which were openly solicited from both union and non-union employees
proved to be sufficient to enable three persons to attend the dinner
and Mrs. Giardina as well as Lopez and Fortunato did so.
On the afternoon of February 17, 1938, Fernando Trelles, a cigar
examiner, discovered eight or nine bad cigars in bundles containing
Mrs. Giardina's number. He thereupon gathered together the various
bundles of cigars containing her number and took them to Ayala,
the foreman. Together Ayala and Trelles examined the bundles and
discovered a total of 25 bad cigars. This fact was reported by Ayala
to Manuel Trelles who asked whether "that number" had been pre-
viously warned about poor work. When Ayala answered in the
affirmative Trelles directed that Mrs. Giardina be discharged.
Notwithstanding the instructions given by Trelles, Ayala was
apparently uncertain at the time whether or not to discharge Mrs.
Giardina. This is indicated not only by Ayala's testimony but also
by the fact that on the morning of February 18 he placed the 25
cigars on the table of Mrs. Giardina and asked Mrs. Dowie, Mrs.
Giardina's bunch maker, to inform Mrs. Giardina when she arrived at
the plant that "if she can't do her work any better than this that she
will have to leave today." When Mrs. Giardina arrived at the fac-
tory shortly thereafter, Mrs. Dowie informed her with regard to what
had occurred. Mrs. Giardina thereupon went to, see Ayala and asked
whether the cigars should be rolled again or merely patched. Ayala
informed her that she had been warned frequently about, poor work
and that she "had better go home." Mrs. Giardina returned to.her
table, told a number of her coworkers that she had been discharged
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for making bad cigars, and then left the factory. On the same after-
noon, she returned to the factory and asked Ayala if she was definitely
discharged. When Ayala attempted to discuss the matter, Mrs. Giar-
dina stated, "There is no use, somebody will decide this matter for
me." She then collected her wages and left the factory.
Although Mrs. Giardina testified at the hearing that she was not
sure that the 25 cigars which were placed on her table on the morning
of February 18 were made by her, the evidence as a whole appears
conclusive on this point. The inspector who found the cigars iden-
tified them as having been taken from the bundles marked with Mrs.
Giardina's number. Her foreman testified that he recognized the
cigars as Mrs. Giardina's work. Four of Mrs. Giardina's immediate
coworkers stated that on the basis of their knowledge of Mrs. Giar-
dina's work they recognized the cigars as having been made by her.
Under all the circumstances, we think that no sufficient showing
has been made that the respondent discharged Mrs. Giardina because
of her union affiliation and activity rather than because of her poor
work. We have found that she was warned a number of times be-
tween Christmas 1937 and February 17, 1938, about her unsatisfac-
tory work and that on February 17, 1938, she made 25 bad cigars.
Although it was not unusual for a cigar roller occasionally to have
from one to five cigars returned in a single day for repair, the making
of 25 bad cigars was admittedly an extraordinary occurrence. Abel
Vagas, one of the active members of the union group, testified that
the 25 cigars made by Mrs. Giardina were so bad that even "an ap-
prentice could do better than that." Lopez, a leader of the union
group, testified that he had not seen cigars so made outside of his
apprenticeship. In addition, the evidence indicates that during Mrs.
Giardina's employment some 10 to 20 employees had been discharged
for bad work and that some of these had been in the respondent's
employ for as long as 15 years. Although the respondent frequently
gave specific warnings to employees prior to a discharge that they
would be discharged if they did not do better work and although Mrs.
Giardina was not prior to her discharge given any such specific warn-
ing, we do not feel that this fact in itself affords a sufficient basis for
a finding of discrimination in view of the complaints which were
made to Mrs. Giardina about her work and in view of the number
of bad cigars made by her on February 17. The evidence indicates,
moreover, that the respondent might have given Mrs. Giardina an-
other chance on February 18 but that she foreclosed such possibility
by refusing to discuss the matter and by taking the position that
"somebody will decide this matter for me."
It is also to be noted with regard to our conclusion that no suffi-
cient showing has been made that the respondent discriminated
against Mrs. Giardina because of her union affiliation and activity
MACRINO TRELLES 991
that the evidence leaves doubt as to whether the respondent knew of
such affiliation and activity at the time of Mrs. Giardina's discharge.
A number of the employees who worked at the same table in the
factory as Mrs. Giardina testified that they knew of her union affilia-
tion and activities and that Mrs. Giardina talked at the table about
her union affiliation and attendance at the dinner for Miss Perkins in
a voice which was loud enough to be heard by those sitting around
her in the factory. A number of witnesses testified that it was gen-
erally known that Mrs. Giardina was a member of the C. I. O. Mrs.
Giardina testified that she solicited union members in the factory and
solicited funds for the Union a few days before her discharge. On
the other hand, a considerable number of employees at the same table
as Mrs. Giardina testified that they did not know of her union affilia-
tion or that she had attended the dinner for Miss Perkins. Numer-
ous of the respondent's officials and supervisory employees, including
Ayala, Manuel Trelles, and Fernando Trelles, testified that they did
not know of her union affiliation or activity.
Under all the circumstances, we find that the respondent has not
discriminated against Mrs. Giardina with regard to her hire and
tenure of employment, thereby encouraging or discouraging mem-
bership in a labor organization.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist
therefrom.
Upon the foregoing findings of facts and upon the record in the
case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Committee for Industrial Organization and the organiza-
tion of employees at the plant of the respondent are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Macrino Trelles, Manuel Trelles, Ubaldo Trelles, and
Max L. Block, copartners, doing business as M. Trelles & Company,
New Orleans, Louisiana, and its officers, agents , successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization , to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Immediately post, and keep posted for a period of at least
sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its
employees in conspicuous places throughout its factory, stating that
the respondent will cease and desist as aforesaid;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New
Orleans, Louisiana) in writing within ten (10) days from the date
of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in so
far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) and (3) of the Act.
MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMITH took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.